Orissa High Court
Ramakanta Parhi vs State Of Odisha And Others on 1 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No. 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 2012
WA No.154 of 2012
Ramakanta Parhi .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.155 of 2012
Pradip Kumar Das .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.156 of 2012
Prativa Mishra .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.157 of 2012
Anakar Sahu .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.158 of 2012
Anata Charan Barik .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Pravash Panda
Standing Counsel (S & ME)
Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra
Senior Advocate (R 5)
Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 01.08.2022
08. 1. The challenge in the present appeals is to a common order dated
29th March, 2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the
Appellants' Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 29573, 29575, 29578, 31382
and 32248 of 2011.
2. The Appellants' were originally selected for the post of Sikshya
Sahayaks (SS) in the category of physically handicapped (PH)
pursuant to an advertisement issued on 14th October, 2006.
Although they appeared before the authorities and also signed the
agreement, no engagement letter was issued to them on the plea
that the select list was to be revised on account of the provisions of
the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies Act (ORV Act). After two
rounds of litigation, when the matters were remanded to the
authorities to examine it afresh, the Collector again rejected the
plea of the Petitioners. Thereafter, writ petitions were filed in the
third round which came up for hearing before the learned Single
Judge and which came to be dismissed on two grounds:
(i) That the affected parties who had been selected, had not been
impleaded as parties in the writ petitions.
(ii) The writ petitions were barred by laches as the selection took
place in 2008 whereas the writ petitions were filed only in 2011.
3. The above grounds for rejection of the writ petitions were set
out in the impugned order, where the learned Single Judge
observed in para 6 as under:
"6. It transpires in course of hearing of the case that
while reserving post of SS for the physically
handicapped category persons, the authorities have
reserved post within that category for scheduled
caste and scheduled tribe and socially and
economically backward classes categories, which is
in complete violation of the rule of law propounded
by the Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Gupta v.
Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (supra). The Supreme
Court in clear terms laid down that the authorities
cannot create categories within categories and
reserve seats in the physically handicapped
category for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe
and other backward classes. The action of the
opposite parties is definitely not in consonance with
the ratio decided by the Supreme Court."
4. In other words, the learned Single Judge agreed with the present
Appellants that they could not have been denied appointment
under the PH category and that in the light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Gupta v. Yashwant Kumar
Ahirwar (2007) 8 SCC 621 within the quota of PH, there cannot
be a further reservation for SC, ST and SEBC. In other words, the
reservation for the PH category was a horizontal reservation which
was unaffected by the reservation in vertical mode for SCs, STs
and SEBCs.
5. As far as the plea of the petitions being barred by laches, the
Court is satisfied that there were earlier rounds of litigation which
was initiated by the Petitioners in 2008 and thereafter in 2010 and
therefore, it was not as if the Petitioners waited for over three years
to agitate their rights.
6. As far as the first ground of rejection regarding non-impleading
of the selected candidates, it is seen that in the present writ appeals
pursuant to an application filed by the original writ Petitioners, the
selected candidates have been impleaded as Respondents. One of
them i.e. Respondent No.5 is represented by Mr. Kali Prasanna
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate.
7. In the writ petition originally filed as well as in the writ appeals,
there is no prayer for removal of the selected candidates. The
prayer is only that the PH category candidates i.e. the Appellants
who were duly selected ought to be accommodated against the
vacancies available for them.
8. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.5 also points out that there is no prayer as such in the writ
appeal regarding removal of the selected candidates. On their
behalf, Mr. Mishra, states that they would have no objection if the
Appellants could be accommodated as PH candidates against any
vacancy that might still be available.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State seeks
time for instructions on whether there are vacancies in PH quota
against which the present Appellants can be accommodated. An
affidavit specific to that query should be filed by the Respondent-
State within four weeks.
10. List on 14th September, 2022.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S.K. Jena/Secy.
